Evidence of the existence or non-existence of liability insurance is not admissible on the issue of negligence or wrongful conduct.

United States v. Valadez-Gallegos, 162 F.3d 1256, pin? (10th Cir. 1998) ("However, we may not uphold a conviction obtained by piling inference upon inference. United States v. Jones, 44 F.3d 860, 865 (10th Cir. 1995). 'An inference is reasonable only if the conclusion flows...Although proof of criminal guilt can rest on chains of inferences, such pyramided inferences must be reasonable.

Cf. Pfingston v. Ronan Engineering Co., 284 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding, in plaintiff subcontractor employee's qui tam action against defendant transit authority, that statements of the authority's engineer were not....Federal Rule of Evidence of Evidence 804(b)(3) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for a statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, pin? (1980) (Court rejects the former rule that accused is holder of the privilege and holds that testifying spouse is the holder; Court justifies the new rule by criticizing as sexist the alleged superannuated predicate of the former...In a criminal trial the spouse of the defendant has a privilege not to testify at the trial of the defendant or the defendant has a privilege to prevent a spouse from testifying. This privilege is called, variously, the marital privilege, the marital testimony privilege, or the adverse spousal testimony privilege.